Marc, I think there is a danger of doing agile for the sake of it. The real goal is to make more money by delivering more value faster to the end of value

Message 1 of 20
, Oct 6, 2003

Marc,

I think there is a danger of "doing agile" for the
sake of it. The real goal is to make more money by
delivering more value faster to the end of value
chain. If agilists lose sight of this then agile will
be a fad rather than a genuine trend.

I would contest your observation that making the best
ROI or the most money is always best done using the
very pure agile techniques you describe.

For example, in the Boehm and Turner book they
describe a 3 year long XP project which using more
than 30 developers in a 50 person team produced around
500,000 SLOC. Compare this to the CLS project at UOB
in Singapore (the original FDD project) which was
performed using the fine-grained planned versus actual
which with slightly less people (47) but with only 23
developers produced 1,500,000 SLOC in only 18 months.

If SLOC is a reliable metric (and I don't believe it
is but given a lack of a function point assessment of
both projects it is all we have) then the first FDD
project seems to be up to 6 times more effective than
the textbook XP project reported by Boehm and Turner.

Not only was the CLS project a huge success but after
it was rolled live - the bank (UOB) was able to take
over its nearest competitor. This was achieved through
improved competitiveness and the lending system
delivered by the CLS project played a key part in
providing that competitiveness.

One of the big problems with agile successes is that
they get reported in a relative manner e.g. we
implemented (pick a method you like e.g. Scrum) and we
produced a four fold improvement. There are lots of
such anecdotes. Ken even includes one in the Scrum
book. However, none of these results are reported as
absolute figures in a normalized manner. The success
has a lot to do with the starting position. It's
always easy to improve a very poor organization.

So I fail to accept that you can assert that adhoc,
self-organizing processes can outperform lean
processes which still include aspects such as planned
versus actual dates. When you can show me the metrics
from real projects reported in a normalized fashion,
from projects performed in large businesses with large
value-added or revenue generation potential then I
might start to believe.

My claim is not that your approach doesn't work; there
a innumerable
systems that have been built using BDUF or even ad hoc
methodologies.
I'm sure that many of these conform to various sorts
of acceptable metrics.

However, such practices are not Agile in general or
Scrum in
particular. Moreover, they work against the goals and
values that Agile
and Scrum promote, which is counter-productive if you
are trying to combine
them with Agile practices.

My implication that the team should be fired was
provocative, but "that
won't work here because of our culture/our
programmers/our boss" is the
most common objection I hear to using Agile
techniques. This seems
counter-intuitive to me, since I believe that the
great virtue of Agile
techniques is that they can be used even in adverse
circumstances.

You don't have to change the culture to start using
the techniques; just do
your best to implement the practices, and avoid any
practices which work
against the goals and values you are trying to
promote.

It's not magic, it's not easy, but if you don't at
least try the best you
can, you can't claim to be doing Scrum or Agile.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product searchhttp://shopping.yahoo.com

Marc Hamann

David, ... I agree that doing agile is not an end in and of itself. Providing return on investment and return on expectation is the real goal. We do this by

Message 2 of 20
, Oct 6, 2003

David,

>I think there is a danger of "doing agile" for the
>sake of it. The real goal is to make more money by
>delivering more value faster to the end of value
>chain.

I agree that "doing agile" is not an end in and of itself. Providing
return on investment and return on expectation is the real goal.

We do this by producing working software that fulfills the needs of the
customer. I'm quite skeptical that we can do this by producing "metrics".

The only metric that counts is how many of the customer's requirements we
clear out of the backlog by delivering well-made, working software for a
given cost.
Any other metric may or may not be a helpful guideline to help you
accomplish that primary goal, but some metrics are blatantly
counter-productive because they encourage the wrong behaviour.

I'm glad you agree that SLOC is not a good metric; crappy code can eat up
WAY more lines than good code. ;-)

>One of the big problems with agile successes is that
>they get reported in a relative manner

I suppose part of our disagreement comes from our different concerns. You
want to bring a scientific study to the successes of particular cases.
Though I'm skeptical that you can ever factor out all the variables that go
into a large project and isolate with absolute objectivity that one method
is better than another, I can understand why you want to do this.

However, I'm in the trenches, and the only reason I give a fig about the
Agile methodologies is that they offer approaches and techniques that solve
my real day to day challenges in building good, reliable, low cost
software. What Chrysler did, or some offshore bank, though perhaps of
academic interest will not sway me one way or another as to whether those
techniques will work for me. If they work for me, I use them, if they
don't, I won't.

>So I fail to accept that you can assert that adhoc,
>self-organizing processes can outperform lean
>processes which still include aspects such as planned
>versus actual dates.

Well, since we are unlikely to find mutually satisfactory metrics for
determining performance, I don't think I would make that claim. ;-)

However, I do know that professionals who are too valuable to be fired are
smart enough to tell when they are being micro-managed or babied, and
neither of these brings out high morale, creativity and "can do" spirit.

Remember that people will focus their energies on whatever you measure to
evaluate them. If you measure their ability to estimate rather than their
ability to produce working software, you will encourage them to pace their
work to the plan, rather than doing the best they can always, to avoid
taking risks that might throw their estimations off, even if it would
improve the product.

I can't see how that will improve productivity. In fact, I wouldn't
believe it were so even if you showed me some metrics. ;-)

>When you can show me the metrics
>from real projects reported in a normalized fashion,
>from projects performed in large businesses with large
>value-added or revenue generation potential then I
>might start to believe.

When the Buddha was asked "Why should I believe what your saying?", he
replied "Don't believe it. Try it for yourself ."

I can't improve on that. ;-)

Marc

Daniel Gackle

Thanks to everyone who replied on estimates vs. actuals. The best thing for me was seeing the diversity of opinion on it, which helped me realize we can just

Message 3 of 20
, Oct 10, 2003

Thanks to everyone who replied on estimates vs. actuals. The best thing for
me was seeing the diversity of opinion on it, which helped me realize we can
just be pragmatic. Both Jeff's and Ron's reply of "why not give them what
they want if it doesn't cost you anything" (my paraphrase) seems applicable
to our situation. For me this is part of learning to distinguish the
essential stuff from the secondary stuff (which can just flex).

I remain perplexed about exactly what people think they're going to get out
of such numbers. Maybe my problem is that word "exactly". Maybe they just
have a fuzzy idea of what they think they'll get... something vague but
comforting, like "more control".

Daniel

David J. Anderson

... I remain perplexed about exactly what people think they re going to get out of such numbers. Maybe my problem is that word exactly . Maybe they just have

I remain perplexed about exactly what people think
they're going to get out
of such numbers. Maybe my problem is that word
"exactly". Maybe they just
have a fuzzy idea of what they think they'll get...
something vague but
comforting, like "more control".

Daniel

-=-=-

Daniel,

There is a real danger that some mangers/directors
will try to use the data for staff evaluation and use
it to filter out targets for layoffs. I worked with a
director at Sprint who tried to do this. I (somewhat)
successfully turned this into athe more benign,
monitoring of our ability to estimate. This made it
more a metric measuring line managers like me, than a
metric measuring my staff. I saw that as part of my
job - taking the heat away from the workforce.

Hence, I think that you are right to be wary. I don't
think that anyone believes they have more control from
metrics like these - other than they believe that they
will get early warning of slippages.

People I work with who believe in short-time window
planned versus actual, i.e. only planned out up to two
weeks ahead, believe that it provides commitment and
focus when that can't be achieved through other means
such as daily standups.

I don't know anyone who genuinely believes that
fine-grained planned versus actual dates works beyond
that time period. Trying to make a full release plan
in advance is just inviting Gantt Chart hell and
providing busy work for project managers anxious to
keep their jobs and their PMI qualifications.
Sometimes, you should look to the personal motivation
and the extremely local optimum for an explanation of
why something is the way it is.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product searchhttp://shopping.yahoo.com

Ken Schwaber

In some instances we re going to be stuck with tracking actuals. Mel Pullen pointed out that this may be a symptom of displaced management trying to figure out

Message 5 of 20
, Oct 12, 2003

In some instances we're going to be stuck with tracking actuals. Mel Pullen
pointed out that this may be a symptom of displaced management trying to
figure out how they are adding value, and relying on what they have used in
the past to add that value. They have always tried to improve predictabity
in the past, let's try to do it in the future.

I've always tried to get management to do another job. I've tried to get
them to see how well or badly a team does, what it can produce Sprint by
Sprint. Then I ask them to actually do the job of management - figure out
what to do based on what the team has been able to build. Should release
dates be changed? Should the project be decommissioned? Should functionality
be dropped from this release? Should the team's expertise be improved in
some areas? To me, these are all reasonable areas of management expertise,
not throwing the problem back on the team by saying, "improve your
estimates."

I'd say you shouldn't do it because it doesn't add value commensurate with
its cost. Don't argue with your bosses that it "adds no value" because
comparing what you originally thought a task would take with what it did
take can help make you a better estimator.

But, it can be time-consuming to track actuals, especially for a full team
where some on the team are probably already decent estimators.

Because Scrum already has solid mechanisms for monitoring whether all the
work gets done in a sprint (high team commitment, daily burndown charts,
daily scrum, and so on), Scrum does not have the same reliance on early and
accurating estimating that a predictive or waterfall approach does.

So--the cost to gather actuals is the same in Scrum or waterfall. The
benefit in Scrum is greatly reduced.

--Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:35 AM
> To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
> actuals?
>
> At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals.
> They
> like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we
> gave
> them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with
> the
> hours actually spent on that task.
>
> I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
> spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our
> shoulder.
> Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
>
> Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
>
> - Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
> Subject: New Scrum Article Available
>
> No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals even a
> small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
> chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the resolution
> of
> the measurements.
>
> What this means for software development is that even though we can use
> previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software we
> have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it can
> wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the
> process
> model is very tightly defined.
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
> unsubscribe@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

In some instances we're going to be stuck with tracking actuals. Mel Pullen
pointed out that this may be a symptom of displaced management trying to
figure out how they are adding value, and relying on what they have used in
the past to add that value. They have always tried to improve predictabity
in the past, let's try to do it in the future.

I've always tried to get management to do another job. I've tried to get
them to see how well or badly a team does, what it can produce Sprint by
Sprint. Then I ask them to actually do the job of management - figure out
what to do based on what the team has been able to build. Should release
dates be changed? Should the project be decommissioned? Should functionality
be dropped from this release? Should the team's expertise be improved in
some areas? To me, these are all reasonable areas of management expertise,
not throwing the problem back on the team by saying, "improve your
estimates."

I'd say you shouldn't do it because it doesn't add value commensurate with
its cost. Don't argue with your bosses that it "adds no value" because
comparing what you originally thought a task would take with what it did
take can help make you a better estimator.

But, it can be time-consuming to track actuals, especially for a full team
where some on the team are probably already decent estimators.

Because Scrum already has solid mechanisms for monitoring whether all the
work gets done in a sprint (high team commitment, daily burndown charts,
daily scrum, and so on), Scrum does not have the same reliance on early and
accurating estimating that a predictive or waterfall approach does.

So--the cost to gather actuals is the same in Scrum or waterfall. The
benefit in Scrum is greatly reduced.

--Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:35 AM
> To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
> actuals?
>
> At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals.
> They
> like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we
> gave
> them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with
> the
> hours actually spent on that task.
>
> I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
> spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our
> shoulder.
> Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
>
> Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
>
> - Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
> Subject: New Scrum Article Available
>
> No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals even a
> small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
> chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the resolution
> of
> the measurements.
>
> What this means for software development is that even though we can use
> previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software we
> have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it can
> wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the
> process
> model is very tightly defined.
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
> unsubscribe@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

... What will the client do with the managers whose unnecessary management labor will be eliminated? Or, more to the point, what do the affected managers

Message 7 of 20
, Oct 12, 2003

Steven Gordon wrote:

> I have worked on many projects in the past where the
> elimination of labor was considered a significant benefit,
> if not the greatest benefit of the resulting process and/or
> product.
>
> Why would the elimination of unnecessary management labor not
> be a benefit to a client? Maybe, the case needs to be made
> further up the food chain?

What will the client do with the managers whose "unnecessary management
labor" will be eliminated? Or, more to the point, what do the affected
managers *think* the client will do with them?

If the particular client has a history of dealing with "unnecessary"
positions by firing the persons therein, the affected managers are going
to be *very* strongly motivated to make sure *their* positions are seen
as "necessary".

The main difference is whose position is being eliminated. It bothers me that projects which reduce how much labor it takes to do production

Message 8 of 20
, Oct 12, 2003

The main difference is whose position is being eliminated.

<Rant mode on>

It bothers me that projects which reduce how much labor it takes to do production will lead to reductions in force, but projects that reduce how much management is required just leads to managers with time on their hands.

And managers with time on their hands leads to micromanagement activities like tracking estimates vs. actuals in a process where the metric is not highly correlated to success. Next, they will try to weigh the process down with collecting even more metrics that are not success factors, and start applying 6-sigma optimizations on them. Will anybody notice that these measured metrics will improve, but actual productivity and true successes will decrease? Probably not, because they will define productivity and success in terms of the metrics they are collecting and analyzing.

> I have worked on many projects in the past where the
> elimination of labor was considered a significant benefit,
> if not the greatest benefit of the resulting process and/or
> product.
>
> Why would the elimination of unnecessary management labor not
> be a benefit to a client? Maybe, the case needs to be made
> further up the food chain?

What will the client do with the managers whose "unnecessary management
labor" will be eliminated? Or, more to the point, what do the affected
managers *think* the client will do with them?

If the particular client has a history of dealing with "unnecessary"
positions by firing the persons therein, the affected managers are going
to be *very* strongly motivated to make sure *their* positions are seen
as "necessary".

It bothers me that projects which reduce how much
labor it takes to do production will lead to
reductions in force, but projects that reduce how much
management is required just leads to managers with
time on their hands.

And managers with time on their hands leads to
micromanagement activities like tracking estimates vs.
actuals in a process where the metric is not highly
correlated to success. Next, they will try to weigh
the process down with collecting even more metrics
that are not success factors, and start applying
6-sigma optimizations on them. Will anybody notice
that these measured metrics will improve, but actual
productivity and true successes will decrease?
Probably not, because they will define productivity
and success in terms of the metrics they are
collecting and analyzing.

<Rant mode off>

Sorry if I offended any managers here.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product searchhttp://shopping.yahoo.com

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.